Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Discussion of each of the 18 parts of Twin Peaks the Return

Moderators: Annie, BookhouseBoyBob, Ross, Jerry Horne, Brad D

dronerstone
Posts: 494
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 12:31 pm

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby dronerstone » Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:04 am

"Oh it's a bald guy, I'm sure it's Charlie!"

I don't think so tbh.

My take is that Audrey's in the "normal" reality and living in a probably platonic relationship to Charlie, with a marriage/relationship contract, which isn't highly unusual these days.
If her strange behaviour stems from the explosion/coma we don't know and can't certainly say yet. Let's see what other info we get re: Audrey. Weird arc, I wonder if it's of any importance to the other main plotlines, but I get the impression that it is not.

What I'm REALLY in anticipation of is more Sarah Palmer stuff. Something is clearley off about her way, no matter if you look at the supermarket scene, Hawk at her door or her watching that boxing loop. I get a real "dark" feeling here. Whatever may be revealed will probably be pretty dark/crazy. Glad to say I managed to stop reading the part 14 spoilers halfway through, so I'm not even sure if there's Sarah in the upcoming episode - and I don't WANT to know (yet). ;)
User avatar
Methedrome
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 12:40 pm

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby Methedrome » Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:08 am

Did anyone else first think that Detective Clark was being played by a cameo from Harvey Keitel or Bryan Cranston?
PeaksCarnivaleLost
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2016 11:00 am

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby PeaksCarnivaleLost » Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:11 am

Novalis wrote:
sycamore wrote:
beyondthesea wrote:I feel very tired today, and I've partially racked my brains to try and figure out why farm boss walloped Mr. C before the arm wrestle. "This is for the Kindergarten teacher".

The one that Richard tried to kill, yes? So why wallop Mr. C.

I have a feeling someone is going to point out that I have clearly missed something. Please don't internet-bully me though.


i assumed renzo (the farm boss) was just being a sarcastic smartass. when mr c first arrived and muddy tells him about arm wrestling, mr c says, "what is this ... kindergarten? nursery school?" the knock in the back of the head was cheap payback for mr c's snide questions.


Yeah, this was my take also. I'll have to relisten but I thought Renzo said 'this is from the Kindergarten teacher', a comeback for DoppelCoop's insult.



It took me till re-watch, Just payback for the remark. I think it was Nursery teacher he said but same thing. Haha I immediately thought I forgot a character as well.
Metamorphia
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 4:52 am

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby Metamorphia » Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:15 am

Methedrome wrote:Did anyone else first think that Detective Clark was being played by a cameo from Harvey Keitel or Bryan Cranston?


Lol yup, I thought it was a surprise Bryan Cranston appearance at first!
DreadDub
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:14 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby DreadDub » Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:15 am

Methedrome wrote:Did anyone else first think that Detective Clark was being played by a cameo from Harvey Keitel or Bryan Cranston?


Raises Hand. I was positive it was Harvey Keitel until the camera angle switched to his profile.
LateReg
Posts: 936
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby LateReg » Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:16 am

sewhite2000 wrote:I can't find anything in the history of the show that indicates Lynch and Frost want us to focus on the significance of split-second moments that require a freeze-frame to interpret.

Sarah's TV repeating itself on endless loop? Okay, THAT's significant and weird and worthy of comment. People seeing some sort of time-shift in a Big Ed reflection that's so effing obscure to begin with I couldn't see it on original veiwing and even after six thousand people have posted freeze-frames I can still barely kind of even maybe halfway see there even is a reflection? That is NOT a signficant moment. And all the people who think it is don't understand Twin Peaks. They're getting all these crazy theories from having watched X-Files or Lost or something. That's not how Twin Peaks has ever operated. You're getting this let's freeze a frame and overanalyze it to the nth degree from some other show, not Twin Peaks.

I had no idea when I got these message boards how clueless so many people would be about how this show should be viewed. It makes me as unhappy as you are with my comments.


I'm not into doing what you're accusing people of doing, and I generally stay away from theorizing as I am along for the ride and admire the filmmaking. So many theories are outlandish, I agree. However, I think I made some plausible points in my previous response. I feel increasingly disoriented by Lynch's chronology he's putting forth. Something seems out of whack to me. The Big Ed reflection is not a freeze-frame thing. You notice it in motion, albeit briefly, and its possibilities are chilling. Even if nothing comes of it, it is there, most likely on purpose, and it suggests something to me that actually makes sense within a show about Doppelgangers.

Now, I've seen Inland Empire 19 times. There's also a shot near the end of that which appears to show a blonde's hair reflected in a scene in which there is no blonde. We'll never be clear on whether it's really there or what it means, but something is there. Perhaps this kind of stuff has never popped up in the history of the show, but in Lynch's work from Lost Highway onwards, there is a case to be made that miniscule clues pepper the screen. I still view Lynch as a maker of films to get lost in, and that the feeling is the most important aspect. But like I said, I FEEL something is off. Time keeps seeming to reset due to Lynch's editing choices. So what I've seen in the reflection fits my interpretation of my feelings.
User avatar
Saturn's child
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:38 pm
Location: Blue Mountains

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby Saturn's child » Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:26 am

LateReg wrote:Now, I've seen Inland Empire 19 times. There's also a shot near the end of that which appears to show a blonde's hair reflected in a scene in which there is no blonde. We'll never be clear on whether it's really there or what it means, but something is there. Perhaps this kind of stuff has never popped up in the history of the show, but in Lynch's work from Lost Highway onwards, there is a case to be made that miniscule clues pepper the screen. I still view Lynch as a maker of films to get lost in, and that the feeling is the most important aspect. But like I said, I FEEL something is off. Time keeps seeming to reset due to Lynch's editing choices. So what I've seen in the reflection fits my interpretation of my feelings.


Excellent post. & not that it was intentional, but
BOB-twin-peaks.png
BOB-twin-peaks.png (306.89 KiB) Viewed 3207 times
User avatar
Novalis
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:18 pm

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby Novalis » Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:28 am

PeaksCarnivaleLost wrote:re-watching last night

it seems like Charlie says "Enter Story 2"

sorry haven't read the posts lately - apologize if stated earlier.

but since she goes on about Little Girl Down the Lane, I believe that it's clearly a NEW storyline Charlie is going to take her down.

And it seems Audrey doesn't want to go there.

"end your story too" - doesn't make sense cause who else's story is he ending?


'Little Girl Down the Lane' could well refer to

  • the 1976 film of that name
  • quasi-reference to the Baa Baa Black Sheep (it's a little boy down the lane) [note: we've had Hey Diddle Diddle with DoppelCoop's 'Cow Jumped Over the Moon' -- maybe this is another call-sign or code]
  • the folk-tale about how evil entered the world, from Grace Zabriskie's Polish Neighbour character in Inland Empire
  • 'that little girl that got murdered' (Teresa Banks -- a Hap's Diner line from FWWM)
  • Laura (who died locally, and after all, as a high school student)
  • Audrey herself, since she doesn't appear to know who she really is
  • Audrey being facetious to Charlie, i.e. 'all your stories are childish nonsense Charlie'

The idea that Charlie is somehow involved in controlling the narrative universe in which Audrey is, or thinks she is, seems interesting to me. Some intelligent responses I've seen on this forum so far include the idea that Charlie may be her psychotherapist (I've worked as a practitioner, narrative therapy is a fascinating methodology). Audrey definitely seems to be circumscribed somehow by Charlie and his discourse. It's hard to know what level of reality we are witnessing though; are these awkward conversations we see representations of some dim awareness that she is not literally present at the site of her own body right now, or something like this? Or indeed, is this even Audrey's dream? It could just as well be anyone's.
As a matter of fact, 'Chalfont' was the name of the people that rented this space before. Two Chalfonts. Weird, huh?
User avatar
Novalis
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:18 pm

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby Novalis » Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:31 am

DreadDub wrote:
Methedrome wrote:Did anyone else first think that Detective Clark was being played by a cameo from Harvey Keitel or Bryan Cranston?


Raises Hand. I was positive it was Harvey Keitel until the camera angle switched to his profile.


Guilty as charged. Was actually a little disappointed. But not that much.
As a matter of fact, 'Chalfont' was the name of the people that rented this space before. Two Chalfonts. Weird, huh?
User avatar
pixletwin
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:54 pm

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby pixletwin » Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:31 am

Methedrome wrote:Did anyone else first think that Detective Clark was being played by a cameo from Harvey Keitel or Bryan Cranston?


I though Keitel, too. But after a few minutes he looked too waspy. Lol
writersblock
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:03 am

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby writersblock » Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:39 am

sewhite2000 wrote:I can't find anything in the history of the show that indicates Lynch and Frost want us to focus on the significance of split-second moments that require a freeze-frame to interpret.

Sarah's TV repeating itself on endless loop? Okay, THAT's significant and weird and worthy of comment. People seeing some sort of time-shift in a Big Ed reflection that's so effing obscure to begin with I couldn't see it on original veiwing and even after six thousand people have posted freeze-frames I can still barely kind of even maybe halfway see there even is a reflection? That is NOT a signficant moment. And all the people who think it is don't understand Twin Peaks. They're getting all these crazy theories from having watched X-Files or Lost or something. That's not how Twin Peaks has ever operated. You're getting this let's freeze a frame and overanalyze it to the nth degree from some other show, not Twin Peaks.

I had no idea when I got these message boards how clueless so many people would be about how this show should be viewed. It makes me as unhappy as you are with my comments.


Even if you are right, this does come off as one of the most arrogant things I have read on this thread. It's okay to disagree but to say people who are getting excited about potential discoveries are clueless? My God!

David Lynch said this of watching the new season: If people at home had as big a screen as possible, and great sound, and if they did turn the lights down for the things they see, and make it a safe place, a good place to see it, that would be really beautiful.’

That sounds to me like he wants us to pay attention. He told us to pay particular attention to things in Mulholland Drive too. He wants us to pay attention. To the visuals and the sounds. You may be right. I personally think you are wrong. Having seen the bizarre reflection on my television at home - exactly how David Lynch suggested by the way or I might not have - I cannot see how it could be some sort of production error. It doesn't even matter to me if it is. But I just can't see how it is. Also I didn't need to freeze frame anything... I did a quick rewind to make sure my eyes weren't deceiving me.

This is a lot more to me than the potential continuity error of people shifting around in the RR - I even think it was a stretch that people said it looked like Shelly noticed it - I still think she was reacting to Bing running into the Double R.
LateReg
Posts: 936
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby LateReg » Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:58 am

writersblock wrote:
sewhite2000 wrote:I can't find anything in the history of the show that indicates Lynch and Frost want us to focus on the significance of split-second moments that require a freeze-frame to interpret.

Sarah's TV repeating itself on endless loop? Okay, THAT's significant and weird and worthy of comment. People seeing some sort of time-shift in a Big Ed reflection that's so effing obscure to begin with I couldn't see it on original veiwing and even after six thousand people have posted freeze-frames I can still barely kind of even maybe halfway see there even is a reflection? That is NOT a signficant moment. And all the people who think it is don't understand Twin Peaks. They're getting all these crazy theories from having watched X-Files or Lost or something. That's not how Twin Peaks has ever operated. You're getting this let's freeze a frame and overanalyze it to the nth degree from some other show, not Twin Peaks.

I had no idea when I got these message boards how clueless so many people would be about how this show should be viewed. It makes me as unhappy as you are with my comments.


Even if you are right, this does come off as one of the most arrogant things I have read on this thread. It's okay to disagree but to say people who are getting excited about potential discoveries are clueless? My God!

David Lynch said this of watching the new season: If people at home had as big a screen as possible, and great sound, and if they did turn the lights down for the things they see, and make it a safe place, a good place to see it, that would be really beautiful.’

That sounds to me like he wants us to pay attention. He told us to pay particular attention to things in Mulholland Drive too. He wants us to pay attention. To the visuals and the sounds. You may be right. I personally think you are wrong. Having seen the bizarre reflection on my television at home - exactly how David Lynch suggested by the way or I might not have - I cannot see how it could be some sort of production error. It doesn't even matter to me if it is. But I just can't see how it is. Also I didn't need to freeze frame anything... I did a quick rewind to make sure my eyes weren't deceiving me.

This is a lot more to me than the potential continuity error of people shifting around in the RR - I even think it was a stretch that people said it looked like Shelly noticed it - I still think she was reacting to Bing running into the Double R.


I think potential proof that it was placed there intentionally, and not on accident, is that Ed's reflection is ONLY there during that moment. It's not there at any other time. If Ed's reflection was constantly being picked up in that shot, I could see it being a case of the entire background being replaced and the editors not noticing the reflection acting differently than the actor in the final composite. But the reflection is literally only there for a 5 seconds, and never again. Based on this, I hypothesize that the reflection was never actually picked up naturally, but was inserted later.
PeaksCarnivaleLost
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2016 11:00 am

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby PeaksCarnivaleLost » Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:00 am

pixletwin wrote:
Methedrome wrote:Did anyone else first think that Detective Clark was being played by a cameo from Harvey Keitel or Bryan Cranston?


I though Keitel, too. But after a few minutes he looked too waspy. Lol



normally a mustache would put me in a tizzy but the voice told me "Scudder" ....
User avatar
Novalis
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:18 pm

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby Novalis » Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:05 am

writersblock wrote:
sewhite2000 wrote:I can't find anything in the history of the show that indicates Lynch and Frost want us to focus on the significance of split-second moments that require a freeze-frame to interpret.

Sarah's TV repeating itself on endless loop? Okay, THAT's significant and weird and worthy of comment. People seeing some sort of time-shift in a Big Ed reflection that's so effing obscure to begin with I couldn't see it on original veiwing and even after six thousand people have posted freeze-frames I can still barely kind of even maybe halfway see there even is a reflection? That is NOT a signficant moment. And all the people who think it is don't understand Twin Peaks. They're getting all these crazy theories from having watched X-Files or Lost or something. That's not how Twin Peaks has ever operated. You're getting this let's freeze a frame and overanalyze it to the nth degree from some other show, not Twin Peaks.

I had no idea when I got these message boards how clueless so many people would be about how this show should be viewed. It makes me as unhappy as you are with my comments.


Even if you are right, this does come off as one of the most arrogant things I have read on this thread. It's okay to disagree but to say people who are getting excited about potential discoveries are clueless? My God!

David Lynch said this of watching the new season: If people at home had as big a screen as possible, and great sound, and if they did turn the lights down for the things they see, and make it a safe place, a good place to see it, that would be really beautiful.’

That sounds to me like he wants us to pay attention. He told us to pay particular attention to things in Mulholland Drive too. He wants us to pay attention. To the visuals and the sounds. You may be right. I personally think you are wrong. Having seen the bizarre reflection on my television at home - exactly how David Lynch suggested by the way or I might not have - I cannot see how it could be some sort of production error. It doesn't even matter to me if it is. But I just can't see how it is. Also I didn't need to freeze frame anything... I did a quick rewind to make sure my eyes weren't deceiving me.

This is a lot more to me than the potential continuity error of people shifting around in the RR - I even think it was a stretch that people said it looked like Shelly noticed it - I still think she was reacting to Bing running into the Double R.


I've got to agree, that was a malicious post. Fans, critics, reviewers and academics have been noticing details in Lynch's films for a long time. During the 27 year break from Twin Peaks I've been reading Full of Secrets: Critical Approaches to Twin Peaks, The Essential Wrapped in Plastic, The Passion of David Lynch, The Strange World of David Lynch: Transcendental Irony From Eraserhead to Mullholland Drive, The Art of the Ridiculous Sublime: On David Lynch's Lost Highway, Beautiful Dark, and many others. An interest in details, the visual equivalent of a 'close reading', runs like a thread through pretty much all these published works. We're in good company, us 'clueless' folk. Also, as writersblock says, since Lynch thought to include an insert with my copy of MD asking me to pay attention to such seemingly innocuous details as table lamps, the argument over ignoring details and trying to followg authorial intentionality really makes little sense at all. Over the years Lynch has really signposted in interviews how semiosis and reception generates its own meanings, even, according to some, fully acknowledging this widespread fan behaviour in Chet Desmond's exposition of Lil in FWWM. But my final point is this: how is other people enjoying the show in their own way detrimental to anyone else? What warrants this kind of abusive response?

As for the aspersions cast about having the wrong interpretive attitude towards Twin Peaks owing to being over-saturated by other shows, well I was never an X-phile or a follower of Lost (Millennium I'll admit to). I'm no forum junkie either; my posting habits over the last month or two is probably the most I've posted online since the alt.tv days.

Anyway.
As a matter of fact, 'Chalfont' was the name of the people that rented this space before. Two Chalfonts. Weird, huh?
User avatar
MoondogJR
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 6:13 am
Location: Belgium

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby MoondogJR » Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:14 am

PeaksCarnivaleLost wrote:normally a mustache would put me in a tizzy but the voice told me "Scudder" ....


Hehe. As a fellow Carnivàle fan I was waiting for the appearance of Savage so I immediatly recognized him.
"Your log and I are on the same page."

Return to “Parts Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests